International Women's Day

[Conservative,]

Greetings friend,

please refer to this page and then conclude that you are stereotyping a situation which should be on a per basis scenario.

I said example. It was an example, not a real life situation I did not intend for it to be taken literally it was just a way of putting my way of thinking for those to see.

[Catzsy]

Indeed it is a scam and a scam which is held together by government, as far as i'm aware - you have to have car insurance in order to drive which in reality is not needed and would bring prices crashing down in order to get people to adopt insurance, but as usual - the state with its good intentions brings about the opposite result. But as it stands, its sensible to have it based on statistics until you consult the bigger issue as I pointed out above, question is; would you be for de-regulation of the insurance industry or not?

The problem with the EU becoming involved (as this is always the problem) is that no successive election or government can change any of these rules to suit Great Britain if we needed to in the future, and that is fundementally undemocratic. It also adds to the red tape, with yet another layer of government being added to the legislative process.



Companies which are held in those positions by government itself, of which you pay tax to 'battle' these companies who are in the pockets of government. All big companies and government monopolies are in bed with government itself hence why they lobby Brussels along with Westminister and Washington.. and until you break the monopolies (by removing the state from the equation) then it will just continue on and on while becoming more and more complicated. Often the left calls for regulation in order to battle big business, when it is government regulation itself which is there soley to help their friends in big business. I've gone off topic a bit to the bigger issue, but to sort companies such as insurance you need to de-regulate and get government along with the EU out of it.

They play smoke and mirrors.



Agreed on that point then.



In body they are yes, they are born (the majority of men) superior to women in that aspect.

But Rosie remembering; you are fully for state discrimination, you told me in the past that you supported quotas.

No I do not support quotas generally(they do not have quotas in the fire service). What I do support equal opportunities and diversity and I have to say that this thread and your posts in it have the to be the most bigoted **** I have ever seen you post and that is saying something.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I do not support quotas generally(they do not have quotas in the fire service). What I do support equal opportunities and diversity and I have to say that this thread and your posts in it have the to be the most bigoted **** I have ever seen you post and that is saying something.

Ahh and so the petty name calling begins from the high priestess of fairness and equality (but not mentioning the fact that the high priestess herself supports dishing out jobs to people based on their race, sex and sexuality on the altar of 'diversity' rather than who is best suited to the job) but I do look forward to some examples of my bigotry being presented.

A bigot? a sexist? a racist? a xenophobe? a homophobe? i'm not the one who cares about all of those things, only you do. I judge people based on their merit and ability rather than which politically correct group they belong to. I couldn't put it better than Ron Paul does here, and it can apply to all them examples I listed;

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

[Hecktix]

There is ALWAYS a risk. Every time someone drives a car there is a RISK they will crash. Doesn't mean they will, but that's why people buy insurance.

Sums up my entire point Robbie, no matter who gets in a car there is always a risk and whether it's a guy or a girl the risk is pretty much equal. The only fair way to deal with insurance is by years driven and miles driven - sometimes that happens sometimes it doesn't - it's a step forward making women pay the same amount as men as it's quite clear that any statistics that suggest men cause more crashes than women are flawed. There are many discriminatory bias within car insurance, as I mentioned to Dan earlier a 34 year old could pass their test tomorrow, get the same car as me and pay half the insurance despite the fact I've been driving 3 years longer than he has and I've driven 14,000 miles with no incidents whatsoever. But y'know that's how insurance works.

You give an example of an elderly woman being more likely to crash, well this is where we can get scientific, it is scientifically proven that reflexes decrease after the age of 65, it is also scientifically proven that over the age of 65 cognitive abilities begin to decrease - therefore obviously this elderly woman is at a disadvantage driving and is more dangerous - that's scientific proof if you want it and yeh she should be charged more.

There is no scientific reason for a man being more likely to crash than a woman and unless you can prove the link then there shouldn't be different charges based upon sex.

[Conservative,]

If there is real, independent statistics that men crash more than women - they should pay more. If there is not, they shouldn't. If it shows women crash more, they should pay more. That is my view. My view works both ways - if men crash more, so be it and they should pay more. If women crash more - they should pay more, and if they are both the same - they should pay equal. However I highly doubt any reliable statistics show that men and women are equally likely to crash - as Dan said there are a lot of "boy racers". First time drivers aged 17/18 who want to show off to their mates then crash into a lamp post. Not saying anyone here is one, but I've seen it, and that is why insurance is higher for men, rightly or wrongly. However insurance should be "how likely are they to (example: Crash)" "X(1) times, costing X(2) much over X(3) period" then pay (X(1) x X(2)) / X(3) and then add 5% on because obviously the insurance company needs to make a profit.

[benjamin]

read through all of this thread and it's been a good read, but i definitely have the same/similar opinions to oli on this one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I missed this part out;

(they do not have quotas in the fire service).

Yes they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...re-engine.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...C-brigade.html

[Hecktix]

If there is real, independent statistics that men crash more than women - they should pay more. If there is not, they shouldn't. If it shows women crash more, they should pay more. That is my view. My view works both ways - if men crash more, so be it and they should pay more. If women crash more - they should pay more, and if they are both the same - they should pay equal. However I highly doubt any reliable statistics show that men and women are equally likely to crash - as Dan said there are a lot of "boy racers". First time drivers aged 17/18 who want to show off to their mates then crash into a lamp post. Not saying anyone here is one, but I've seen it, and that is why insurance is higher for men, rightly or wrongly. However insurance should be "how likely are they to (example: Crash)" "X(1) times, costing X(2) much over X(3) period" then pay (X(1) x X(2)) / X(3) and then add 5% on because obviously the insurance company needs to make a profit.

Yet again you go back to statistics which I say are flawed, there are more men on the road therefore in terms of single figures yes more men crash than women but when you put this into proportions, looking at the percentage of men who drive that crash and the percentage of women that drive who crash these are quite similar. You say there are a lot of boy racers, I agree - not as much as there used to be and I'll tell you that now, I've covered 14,000 miles in my 3 years driving and I've not seen one crash involving a boy racer (and I've seen a fair few crashes) - that's not to say that boy racers don't crash, I agree boy racers are more likely to crash however I'd happily say there's an equal amount of barbie girls (at least proportionately) who do their make up in their mirrors whilst driving through busy cities, I saw a crash the other week involving a woman doing her mascara whilst driving in heavy traffic, didn't see the guy infront had stopped - bang.

First time drivers yes want to show off although this applies to girls as much as guys - and this is why it should be equal and depend upon how long you've been driving and not the sex, I've known just as many girls make stupid mistakes showing off as guys. The statistics may have been fair one day but I'm telling you, now they aren't.

[Conservative,]

Yet again you go back to statistics which I say are flawed, there are more men on the road therefore in terms of single figures yes more men crash than women but when you put this into proportions, looking at the percentage of men who drive that crash and the percentage of women that drive who crash these are quite similar. You say there are a lot of boy racers, I agree - not as much as there used to be and I'll tell you that now, I've covered 14,000 miles in my 3 years driving and I've not seen one crash involving a boy racer (and I've seen a fair few crashes) - that's not to say that boy racers don't crash, I agree boy racers are more likely to crash however I'd happily say there's an equal amount of barbie girls (at least proportionately) who do their make up in their mirrors whilst driving through busy cities, I saw a crash the other week involving a woman doing her mascara whilst driving in heavy traffic, didn't see the guy infront had stopped - bang.

First time drivers yes want to show off although this applies to girls as much as guys - and this is why it should be equal and depend upon how long you've been driving and not the sex, I've known just as many girls make stupid mistakes showing off as guys. The statistics may have been fair one day but I'm telling you, now they aren't.

If the statistics are flawed they need to use new, fair statistics and use proportions to work out the insurance as you have said. But making it illegal to have men & women different is ridiculous. The statistics may show men and women cause equal amount of accidents proportionally, I don't know. However that can, and probably does change daily, weekly, monthly, annually etc. I just think it's the wrong way to deal with the problem. The problem is the insurance companies charge too much. A cap will prevent and controlling it will help this.

Lets do it your way okay Oli? You want it to be proportional. Alright. Example: 40 million people have cars in England, 25 million men, 15 million women.
Annually, there are 5 million accidents, 3 million caused by men. 2 million by women. The chances of them crashing are worked out like so: Men: 3/25 x 100 (percentage) = 12% or 0.12 or 12/100, 6/50, 3/25. Whatever. Women: 2/15 x 100 = 13.3 percent recurring. 2/15 0.13 recurring etc. Therefore in this EXAMPLE women should pay more. Do you agree? Obviously this not taking into account age or anything but before going any further I want to see your reply.

[Hecktix]

If the statistics are flawed they need to use new, fair statistics and use proportions to work out the insurance as you have said. But making it illegal to have men & women different is ridiculous. The statistics may show men and women cause equal amount of accidents proportionally, I don't know. However that can, and probably does change daily, weekly, monthly, annually etc. I just think it's the wrong way to deal with the problem. The problem is the insurance companies charge too much. A cap will prevent and controlling it will help this.

Lets do it your way okay Oli? You want it to be proportional. Alright. Example: 40 million people have cars in England, 25 million men, 15 million women.
Annually, there are 5 million accidents, 3 million caused by men. 2 million by women. The chances of them crashing are worked out like so: Men: 3/25 x 100 (percentage) = 12% or 0.12 or 12/100, 6/50, 3/25. Whatever. Women: 2/15 x 100 = 13.3 percent recurring. 2/15 0.13 recurring etc. Therefore in this EXAMPLE women should pay more. Do you agree? Obviously this not taking into account age or anything but before going any further I want to see your reply.

No I don't agree women should pay more in that situation as the thing is, as you said one week more men could cause accidents the next week more women could cause accidents - it's chance and there's no way anybody can say that being a man makes you cause more accidents than being a woman as there is no scientific evidence that there is anything different about men that makes them less able to control a car.